And where exactly would the goverment find meaningfull employment for 11.3 million people?

good question. this is the type of problem that we all have to work out. Depending on what citizens have skills, or educations, government could give them a related job depending on citizens ability.

Because money will be meaningless in the future, although money in term could be weaker in the next capitalism.

In modern capitalism, people who have more money represents power, like middle class, and higher class. But, in the next capitalism, people who have more humanity will represents more power. I think this will lead another type of capitalism. Remember, markets are moving from West to East now.

And you think the east has more humanity?

Capitalism was born in the industrial revolution. But what happens when most meaningful blue collar work is automated and done by machines or outsourced? When it is no longer cost effective to mine your own minerals and oil rather than import them?

We really failed to adapt fast enough to globalisation and the information revolution, and it may yet prove an issue. No-one has really asked the question. What is work? Is an NFL player actually working? How is his job productive, other than by supporting advertising sponsorship and ticket sales? Why is Tiger Woods a millionaire? Is golf so much more valuable than nursing? In fact can one really define the value of any commodity in social terms? It this disconnect not a problem?

In other words, If work is non-productive in the true sense, how is it any better morally than no work at all. If I decide to go on income support and play golf every day I am not doing anything different from Tiger Woods except that I am taking a lot less money out of the system.

The whole idea of a work ethic no longer has any moral foundation. Around 90% of manufacturing and 50% of all jobs in service industries become redundant during the lifetime of the occupation (remember typesetters, printers, car assembly line workers, photographic retouchers, photojournalists). What do you do when people trained for many years finally find themselves without a job? Moreover how do you entice people back into work when they have had such an experience, often more than once?

The concept of employment in the capitalist (as opposed to the feudal) sense is a relatively recent one, but globalisation and technology is making it harder to sustain when every year the options change and any skills you acquired become redundant. Should we all work in law, accountancy, banking or retail? And since when were any of those occupations actually productive (in the sense of generating net revenue)? Are they not simply removing more from the system than they are adding? Are the transaction fees for a company merger charged by banks, accountants and lawyers not in effect merely an expensive form of hidden taxation that is passed on to consumers?

The flow of capital ultimately requires those that have money to receive enough to give most of it back and keep enough for retirement. You can give it back in taxes, or by spending it, but is there really any difference when much of the time you are spending it involuntarily (on middle man service fees attached to the price of goods - even Tiger Wood's prize money adds to the cost of goods after all). One could argue that taxes are at least more transparent. When you spend £100 on a pair of Nike trainers, how much of that is money is related to the cost of the goods themselves?